Some historians of secular academia have suggested he was. (didn't believe in the trinity or divinity of Christ). But what real proof is there of this. Show me some if you know of any.
Newton: "Christ is called the righteous (1 Iohn 2.1 ) & by his righteousness we are saved (Rom. 3.25. & 5.18 1 Cor. 1.30) & except our righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees we shall not enter into the kingdome of heaven. (Mat. 5.20.) Righteousness is the religion of the kingdom of heaven (2 Pet. 3. 13 Isa 60 21) & even the property of God himself" Newton says plainly, "Christ is called righteous, which is a property of God,
we obtain that righteousness through faith in Christ. "by his (Christ) righteousness we are saved". This is a direct indication of his belief in Jesus Christ being the same as God!
2007-09-04 09:11:42 · 6 answers · asked by THEHATEDTRUTH 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
http://www.geocities.com/howiemotz/
2007-09-04 14:45:28 · update #1
More to the point - did his belief system affect physics or calculus (scientific tools which he essentially created or modernized) in any way at all?
If not, what does it matter?
2007-09-04 09:26:30 · answer #1 · answered by chasm81 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dealing with this same aspect of the Trinity is a Newton manuscript entitled “Queries Regarding the Word Homoousios.” It reveals a for his denial of the Trinity. This teaching was not part of early Christianity. Queries twelve to fourteen all highlight the doctrine’s lack of original first-century character:
“Query 12. Whether the opinion of the equality of the three substances was not first set on foot in the reign of Julian the Apostate [361-363Â C.E.], by Athanasius, Hilary, etc.?
Query 13. Whether the worship of the Holy Ghost was not first set on foot presently after the Council of Sardica? [343Â C.E.]
Query 14. Whether the Council of Sardica was not the first Council which declared for the doctrine of the Consubstantial Trinity?”
Perhaps the best summary of Isaac Newton’s Scriptural arguments for his repudiation of the Trinity is found in fourteen ‘Argumenta,’ written in Latin, giving Bible citations for many of them. Numbers four to seven are particularly interesting:
“4. Because God begot the Son at some time, he had not existence from eternity. Proverbs 8:23, 25.
5. Because the Father is greater than the Son. John 14:28.
6. Because the Son did not know his last hour. Mark 13:32, Matt. 24:36, Rev. 1:1, 5:3.
7. Because the Son received all things from the Father.”
Please note your quote concerning righteousness only means that Jesus is the exact representation of God, and Not God.
.
2007-09-04 16:57:38 · answer #2 · answered by TeeM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just your referral to "secular academia" like that is something to be avoided makes me think you'll disregard any answer that is not in line with your preconceptions.
2007-09-04 16:19:11 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Here's my answer. I apologize for answering a question with a question.
If he were an Aryan, would that change your own beliefs in the slightest? Then again, if it turned out he WASN'T, would THAT change your beliefs any?
I rest my case.
2007-09-04 16:16:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It seems by your own evidence he wasn't Arian. I choose to believe he was not Arian. I believe he was a man of God.
2007-09-04 16:18:07 · answer #5 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
He was with the Aryan Circle!!!
2007-09-04 16:17:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋